This study investigated the relevance of a Neo-Piagetian theory
of cognitive development in examining the competence/performance
discrepancy associated with children who have specific learning
disabilities. According to Neo-Piagetian theory (Pascual-Leone, 1970),
a cognitive device called the M-operator is responsible for the integration
of schemes necessary to solve developmental tasks. The
M-capacity available to children increases in an all or none fashion
according to a linear scale which corresponds to the Piagetian substages
of cognitive development. A moderator variable which is
conceptualized as the cognitive style field-independence-dependence
may determine whether a child demonstrates his modal M-capacity on a
task which demands the application of maximum M-space.

A matched pairs design was applied in order to compare the
performance of 25 learning disabled and 25 normally achieving boys
ages 8.5 to 10.0 years on measures of M-capacity, field-independence,
and level of operative thinking. It was hypothesized that the learning
disabled boys would demonstrate M-capacities comparable to the normally
achieving boys, but would be more field dependent, thereby manifesting
a discrepancy between their structural and functional M-capacities
on Piagetian tasks.

Comparisons of group differences on two criterion measures of
M-capacity, two measures of field independence (the Children's
Embedded Figures Test and WISC-R Block Design Subtest), and seven
classical Piagetian tasks which included measures of conservation,
seriation, and classification abilities, yielded the following results:

2. The learning disabled group obtained significantly lower
scores on the instruments used to assess level of field independence;

3. The learning disabled group failed more Piagetian tasks than
the normally achieving group, therefore manifesting a delay in
operative thinking.

4. The relationships between the two measures of M-space and
the two measures of field-independence were markedly different for
the two samples. The results indicated a lack of independence
between M-capacity and a field dependent cognitive style in the LD
group; no comparable relationship was found within the NA group.

Further research applying Neo-Piagetian theory in order to
investigate the disabled boys would demonstrate M-capacities comparable to the normally
achieving boys, but would be more field dependent, thereby manifesting
a discrepancy between their structural and functional M-capacities
on Piagetian tasks.

Comparisons of group differences on two criterion measures of
M-capacity, two measures of field independence (the Children's
Embedded Figures Test and WISC-R Block Design Subtest), and seven
classical Piagetian tasks which included measures of conservation,
seriation, and classification abilities, yielded the following results:

2. The learning disabled group obtained significantly lower
scores on the instruments used to assess level of field independence;

3. The learning disabled group failed more Piagetian tasks than
the normally achieving group, therefore manifesting a delay in
operative thinking.

4. The relationships between the two measures of M-space and
the two measures of field-independence were markedly different for
the two samples. The results indicated a lack of independence
between M-capacity and a field dependent cognitive style in the LD
group; no comparable relationship was found within the NA group.

Further research applying Neo-Piagetian theory in order to
investigate the inefficient processing strategies used by children
with learning disabilities appears warranted. Testing interventions
which restructure cognitive tasks by reducing memory load demands
and/or allow LD children to develop and apply efficient task strategies
is needed.